the Rat is less about criminality per se but the importance and sheer fun of using one's intellect, skill and willpower to carve a survival niche into whatever inhospitable environment one finds oneself. Damn the imposed morality of the overlords. F

Captain Riley refers in her speeches to a document which, as she asserted on one occasion, "I think ought to literally shock you into hopefully understanding that we are involved in something that is much, much bigger than us. This is a demonic activity that is so large, and so encompassing, and hopefully you will never forget the time that you saw this document. Because I've had people contacting me from all over the world wanting to get this. They've only heard that it exists, and they've tried to find it." She continued to describe the document as "one of the most shocking things that I ever saw," and claimed that "a gentleman from the British Broadcasting Company, BBC, was over here for awhile, and I told him that I had this document. I said, 'I can show you something that is going to literally shake you to the rafters.' And I said, 'I want you to know that this is an official government document, and it exists.' And I told him what it was--what I thought it was--and he said, 'I don't believe it. I don't believe you have it.' He sat down. I said, 'Read this.' And when he finished, he was gray. He was absolutely shaken when he saw this. And he left, and said, 'I wish I'd never seen this.'" [2] She told another audience, "I want you to remember this as long as you live. This ought to be like the day Kennedy died," and asserted: "This document to me I believe to be the origination of the appropriation of the money to make the AIDS virus." [3]

The "document" which has become centerpiece of Riley's lectures is a page from a 1969 hearing on Fiscal 1970 appropriations for the Defense Department, conducted by the Subcommittee on Department of Defense Appropriations of the House Committee on Appropriations. Photocopies of the cover of the printed hearing, and the controversial page which Riley cites (page 129), are attached to this memo. The underscoring and other markings were on the copy we received. Note that "HB 15090" has been penned-in on the cover page. Whomever did so was unfamiliar with federal nomenclature, as there is no such bill. House bills at the federal level are designated "H.R." (for "House of Representatives"). The bill number was actually H.R. 15090. It was introduced on December 3, 1969, approved by the House five days later, and by the Senate on December 15th. It was signed into law by President Nixon on December 29th as Public Law 91-171.

Here is how Riley describes the document (bear in mind that it is only a page from a hearing transcript, not a bill):

This is an appropriations hearing of 1970 for the Department of Defense. It is House Bill [sic] 15090....I want you to see that the Department of Defense appropriated [sic] $10 million in 1970 to make a synthetic biological agent. Ask yourself why the Department of Defense needs this kind of an agent.

There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. It says that they believe that "within a period of 5 to 10 years, it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired."

What does that sound like to you? Can you believe that this is actually a House bill, 15090. Why does the DOD need to make something like this?

It goes on down here to say, "within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new effective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organism. Most important of these is that it might be refractory"--damaging--"to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease."

Basically it is saying it will destroy the immune system. 1970 was when this was appropriated. 1975 is the first recorded AIDS-related death [sic; see "'NEW' DISEASES" below]. And it's perfect timing for this.

"A research program to explore the feasibility could be completed in approximately five years at a cost of $10 million."

Now, look at this part down here. This scares me. "It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of large populations."

That is in your government documentation. [3]

Captain Riley does not misquote the hearing record, but she takes it out of context. The discussion was clearly focused on whether or not a research program should be instigated to provide the U.S. a method of defense in the event that some other country were to develop a deadly and impervious "synthetic biological agent." In her speeches, she does not quote the pertinent segment of the final paragraph of the information supplied to the subcommittee, which states: "On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done, there is little that can be done to devise defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no adequate research program." [7]

Captain Riley claims that $10 million was actually appropriated for the suggested research, but there is no mention of such an appropriation in Public Law 91-171. There is, however, a general provision for an emergency defense fund "to be used upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that such funds can be wisely, profitably, and practically used in the interest of national defense," [8] under which the suggested funding could conceivably have been provided. Riley claims that "through a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request it was determined that, yes, this was appropriated--$10 million was appropriated. A virus was made. However, they will not give us the name of the virus." [4] Strangely, however, she does not document that claim with, for instance, photocopies of the pertinent FOIA documents (assuming that they exist). And in any event, if money was indeed spent on the proposed research, there is no reason to believe, based on the documentation Captain Riley does present, that it was for anything other than to find a way to defend the United States against a deadly biological agent that might be developed by some other country.

1. Speech, August 28, 1995, Independence, Kansas

2. Speech, December, 1995, Topeka, Kansas

3. Speech, January 15, 1996, Adrian, Michigan. A version this address, erroneously transcribed in scores of instances, has been widely circulated on the Internet.

4. Speech, July 15, 1996, Lawton, Oklahoma

5. Testimony before the U.S. Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, Clinical Syndromes Panel meeting, San Antonio, Texas, February 27, 1996.

1) A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 2) A lymph node sample taken in 1960 from an adult female, also from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 3) HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969. 4) HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.

A 1998 analysis of the plasma sample from 1959 suggested that HIV-1 was introduced into humans around the 1940s or the early 1950s.

In January 2000, the results of a new study suggested that the first case of HIV-1 infection occurred around 1931 in West Africa. This estimate (which had a 15 year margin of error) was based on a complex computer model of HIV's evolution.

However, a study in 2008 dated the origin of HIV to between 1884 and 1924, much earlier than previous estimates. The researchers compared the viral sequence from 1959 (the oldest known HIV-1 specimen) to the newly discovered sequence from 1960. They found a significant genetic difference between them, demonstrating diversification of HIV-1 occurred long before the AIDS pandemic was recognised.

The authors suggest a long history of the virus in Africa and call Kinshasa the “epicentre of the HIV/AIDS pandemic” in West Africa. They propose the early spread of HIV was concurrent with the development of colonial cities, in which crowding of people increased opportunities for transmission. If accurate, these findings imply that HIV existed before many scenarios (such as the OPV and conspiracy theories) suggest.

ROB wrote:Wasn't it also know as something like 4H for a while? Homosexuals, Horoin Users, Haitians and somethnig else beginnig with H?

A large number of Haitian immigrants living in the US lost their jobs and were evicted from their homes as Haitians were added to homosexuals, haemophiliacs and heroin users to make the 'Four-H Club' of groups at high risk of AIDS.18

Who is online

Please note that the topics discussed, opinions expressed and/or information provided in this forum are those of fellow forum participants only. Neither Robert Young Pelton, nor ComeBackAlive.com Inc., nor Ingle International Inc., nor any other person or entity involved in the creation or maintenance of this site, takes any responsibility or provides any endorsement for the topics discussed, opinions expressed or information provided in this forum. Any advice or information taken from this forum is entirely at your own risk.